Skip to main content

About your Search

20130216
20130224
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
state of the union address, our top priority should be doing everything we can to grow the economy and create good jobs. that is our top priority and it drives every decision we make and it has to drive the decisions that congress and everybody in washington makes over the next several years. that is why it is so troubling that 10 days from now congress might allow a series of automatic, severe budget cuts to take place that will do the exact opposite. it will not help the economy. it will not create jobs. it will visit hardship on a lot of people. here is what is at stake. over the last few years, both parties have worked together to reduce our deficit i more than $2.5 trillion. more than two thirds of that was through some really tough spending cuts. the rest of it was through raising taxes, tax rates on the wealthiest 1% of americans. together, when you take the spending cuts and increased tax rates on the top 1%, it puts us halfway to the goal of four dollars trillion -- $4 trillion in deficit reduction. thomas say we needed to stabilize finances. -- economists say we need it.
change that perception. let's focus on a reality. by reality i mean economy of our political system. this election has its own economy. the economy as two components. one is an economy of stop, and the other is the economy of extortion. the economy of stop drives us to understand to point to the instability in our government. any system where the tiniest slice of the public dominates in the funding produces a system where a tiny number of americans can effectively block any change. it will always be that or at least almost always be that in the context where some much dependence exists on such a tiny number of participants. it is just a couple thousands who have to band together with these contributions to effectively make it possible that in our structure of separated powers you can block any change. this is an economy that depends on polarization. people point to polarization as the cause. it is an effect. it depends on the dysfunction, because the more dysfunctional the institution is, the easier it is to sell this opportunity to block. this function is the business model, which
to do with a rotten economy. older adults are staying in the work force longer any younger adults staying out of the work force longer because they cannot get into it. host: if you don't have a retirement, there is this option -- norman is joining us from maryland, 45 years old. how much have you saved so far for your retirement? caller: first, thanks for having an article on this subject. i have been waiting for this opportunity. i have $2,800 in my 401k plan. i am wanting your opinion for people my age. i was born in 1968. it seems we are at the tail end of the pension plans and profit- sharing and at the front end of all the financial crises in the country. people my age, it seems we were never able told the 10% we were told, the city to hold 10% your entire working life for your retirement. between jobs and layoffs -- and i have always been fortunate to make as much as college graduates, but between the jobs and layoffs throughout my work life and the clinton era taxes and everything -- i'm not blaming him, i thought he was a good president even though i am a republican, i jus
to happen. the impact on the economy would be terrible for american families. we don't want it. we think it is bad policy. it was designed to be bad policy. that was the whole point. the sequester was written in a way that would assure that congress would never let it happen. >> by putting it off, it could work to your advantage perhaps? >> i think you're misunderstanding or maybe we're not doing a good enough job trying to convince you. we support efforts in congress to buy down the sequester but they should come back and do it tomorrow or come back next week. buy it down so the sequester does not have an immediate effect and congress can get back to work and we can get that $4 trillion in deficit reduction that analysts have called for. we've been working for that. up to $2.7 trillion in deficit reduction has been achieved thus far. our deficit is coming down but we need to do more work to make sure that process continues. that's what we want, that's what the president wants. >> i have a question about cyber crime among other things. what can we expect? >> i think if you're talking a t
of civil society, the economy itself, and the states, depend on that kind of maturity but cannot themselves provided. as well as the stabling commitment of a mother and father. that is what gets the state involved in marriage. it is the social need to promote the stabilizing norms. it is those very stabilizing norms that i say are undermined in principle, and then over time, in practice, as we internalize the idea that marriage is just companionship, that it has no more internal requirements and companionship does, which is a very broader category. note what this highlights. this suggests that, if the norm of sexual complementarity is arbitrary, just a traditional holdover, then so is permanence. so is exclusivity. so is monogamy. why do i say that? very often people say, we can cross those bridges when we get there. you do not have to worry today about polyamorous relationships and so on. i think the logic of those positions does not allow that answer. the logic of their position is that what makes a marriage's emotional union is arbitrary, requiring sexual commentary, which is not essenti
of real threats to our security and our economy. >> ok. our enemies he said. is that china? >> look, i have a standing policy when i talk about china. china is not an enemy of the united states. there are no good reasons for china to become an enemy of the united states. there are non-heroic options to keep the relationship competitive, occasionally, maybe ostentation of, but never having to get to the level of conflict -- maybe, confrontational, i never having to get to the level of conflict. that said, the chinese behavior is very disturbing and it should not be allowed to stand. the president used that taxonomy that you and i just did. there is an espionage danger and then a destructive danger. >> the defense secretary said we could be facing a cyber pearl harbor. do you believe that? >> i do not choose to use that phrase myself. there are cyber dangers, but cyber pearl harbor is just two easy. wect be facing a cyber pearl harbor. why? because we're defenseless in the cyber demain. >> what are we going to do >> i adopt have a good answer so i don't say cyber pearl harber. there are
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6